The Linux Administration group is for the discussion of technical issues technical issues that arise during the administration of Linux systems, including maintaining the operating system and supporting end-user applications.

Is Linux Still Too Technical for the Everyday User?

Is Linux for everyone or do you feel like it's still for the uber technical (or dare I say "geekier") individual? I know that within recent years there have been distros that have come out that don't require too much work with the command line and have great desktop environments, making it a lot more accessible to the casual user but is Linux still more technical than working with other OSes (e.g. Windows, OS X) for most of the everyday users?

Popular White Paper On This Topic

This is not about more technical, as you know, you can work with command line every where, even Windows has such tools.

Do you mean user friendly?

I think it is not the friendliness factor, it is the user familiarity factor that is giving a lot of bad name for Linux. Most of the Linux users are those migrating from Microsoft Windows and it requires a certain amount of time to get familiar with the new OS.

If you mean everyday users=icon/click or something like this, they can do such things in so many Linux distributions (Mint,Ubuntu,openSUSE,.. which is provided with great desktops) as well.

So, there's a learning curve with any operating system, and people need to realize that, and this is what technical users usually do.

Yes, it is more technical, but remember this. You can do a lot more
with Linux, than with WinDoze. And the best part is almost all of the
programs that run in Linux are FREE.

Break down:
WinDoze $86.00
Quicken $96.00
I haven't found any program for Win. that will match KOrganizer.
I use Thunderbird, for E-Mail
KMymoney in place of Quicken.
I have Transmission to D-L any large file.
Plus Ubuntu comes with Ubuntu-One, 5 GB of free storage in the cloud.
Plus much more, and all for only the cost of the juice to run the system
for D/L'ing all of the programs you could hope fore.
It also notifies you of any update or upgrade, that will self install!

C> Is Linux for everyone or do you feel like it's still for the uber
C> technical (or dare I say "geekier") individual?

I'd say a resounding "no it's not too technical" and in fact have
several customers using Ubuntu 12.04 ( with the Unity GUI ) without
any problems whatsoever. I know Unity got a lot of bad press when it
arrived but ironically that was from the Linux Geeks who didn't like
it because the simplicity made more advanced use harder, however for
the non-tech user it's ideal IMHO and extremely easy to use.

Personally, I too didn't get on with Unity because my needs were more
advanced so switched to Kubuntu 12.04 instead and for those needing a
bit more from Ubuntu then it's a good alternative and of course the
two desktops can be installed and switched between very easily.

Linux can be made to be easier to operate than Windows or Mac if you are talking about end users who will never need to do anything more than run installed aps, email, and web. Linux can also be made in to a robust command line system where each installation requires compiling from source and OS mastery to make use of. It's your choice. And that's the beauty of Linux.

Well, I tend to help my neighbors in my building out with their problems,
and they are far from a technical crowd. Several of them have been using
Windows XP, and I am migrating them to Ubuntu/Unity. Not a single one of
them have come back and asked me any questions or had any issues that I
know of.

Linux is very good option for home users but no so for business users as such. Yes if you have Citrix or RDS environment deployed in your organisation than Linux can be ideal OS specially for old terminals as Windows XP support is coming to an end.

I find Ubuntu very user friendly but you have a choice of GUI so make sure you get the one with the style and look you are used to or happy with. Some upgrades have some unexpected side effects so make sure you know how to revert to a previous favourite setup.

PV> Linux is very good option for home users but no so for business
PV> users as such.

Business use is a whole different ball game and the companies that
have come to grief trying to introduce it have run both Linux and
Windows in parallel to 'ease the transition'. It doesn't work that way
and they need to bite the bullet and switch everything over. Yes it
takes a lot more planning and training but switching can be successful
if it's done correctly. There's a lot of FUD about TCO in the Linux vs
Windows debate but those companies who have successfully made the
switch the initial cost has been high but subsequent savings more than
outweigh this.

I have a loaner machine for clients whose box is down that runs Ubuntu and they are usually running successfully in 5 minutes or less. This is for people using the GUI and standard applications like OpenOffice. I have setup several Ubuntu and a couple of Mint boxes for people who found they liked it better than Windows. If someone wants to 'administer' their machine, a learning curve exists but most Windows people don't do that either.

My 85 year old mother -In- Law has only called me 4 times in a year, only because she forgot her password. I just changed the Ubuntu 13.04 on her laptop to auto sign her on and eliminated the calls. She is very happy with Ubuntu and glad to get away from all the need to run all the security updates.

The main disadvantage for linux based os is we think it to be more complex but hey the best part then lies with the virus part you don't have to format and reformat the client every now and then unless you have invested in good antivirus program

I think we're not the right ones to answer the question. We're all comfortable in the OS, so we need to ask the users. I can say, I moved my wife to Ubuntu a couple of years ago and it solved a ton of virus and malware issues. The only problem she has is mouse pointer drift on her laptop. Of course there are still some support issues with things like Netflix, so she also has a Win 7 laptop.

The Win 8 comment above is right on. I have a Toshiba laptop that came with Win 8, and after months I still can't say I like it. It may be time to virtualize it in virtualbox like I do my work laptop. Unfortunately some of the apps I have are Windows only.

@heinbaugh offers what I think is the best reply. Every question has a context My 85 year old mother -In- Law has only called me 4 times in a year,

Of course linux is "OK for the average user", though I would hardly call an 85 yr-old mother in law "average" :-) _No_ system is to be used without _some_ assistance. So the relevant questions are of the sort "how hard is it for the ... user to find the help they need with ... "

My personal opinion is that linux exists, and will continue to flourish because individuals with inquiring minds can find an economic niche worth their time to both acquire the skills, and not waste hours supporting the people who can use their help.

I tend to agree with all comments, nevertheless, I have always said
that the Windows-Unix comparison is not very accurate .. I've always
thought that the proper comparison would be any Unix flavor vs
windows Whatever server edition ... IMHO, windows xp/vista/7/8
are almost as insecure as any version of unix logged in as root.
But I really think, nowadays with the proper selection of the
launcher/GUI/frontend, almost any kind of user, with at least a
little of support (definitely much less than the kind of support
needed for win8) should make them up, running and functional
within a few hours or (more probably, much) less ...

Yeah, sometimes, Linux could be rather complicated for the very new geeks (or more specific for new comer in computer world).
But, it really doesn't matter for geeks who familiar with computer stuff, even if just as an end user. Linux quite franky for human I guess :))

The question itself is a bit of a "loaded question". No matter which operating system, distribution, user interface, or environment is used, there is not a one that 95% or more of the population can install and manage on their own, so get that out of the way first.

How many people can install their own version of Windows or their next version? Anyone who can do that can also install and manage their own system of XYZ, whatever that may be. But most people cannot do that.

So the next question is whether there are enough versions that are easy enough to use in every day use. The answer is a definite yes.

A couple of years ago, I asked my own mother, 84 years old at the time of the experiment, if she would allow me to install some different computer systems on her old laptop, because I found it to be painfully slow with what was installed on it (Windows XP with a lot of extra bloatware). She agreed.

Every time I changed something, or every time she had gone weeks between uses, she'd have a question, but when it came to just logging in, reading her Email, possibly searching for the weather, the news, or some public event, it turned out that she could do such things just fine.

Once I settled on a particular system and no longer changed it, she was able to handle that with less and less frequent assistance.

I still felt that getting her a simple tablet with touch screen interfaces would be easier for her; turns out it has been.

I bought her a Barnes and Noble Nook HD, a simple tablet with a simple interface. Now the only time she needs help is when someone sends her a slideshow of pictures. Occasionally we need the computer to view them as slides, though the Nook can generally view pictures, one at a time.

By the way, some of you probably know that the Nook uses Android-based software. Guess what system kernel that uses? (Not Windows; it's a Linux kernel).

There you have it; my mom is not even an "every day user", she is a once or twice a week user, and she can use a tablet or a Linux based laptop. Sometimes she needs help, but it's mostly because she doesn't use them every day, and it's hard to remember stuff you only do once in a while; she's done well, though, and made a LOT of progress!

Hhave been using Ubuntu and Puppy Linux lucid 5.28 for years and they
perform better than Windows .The Linux includes all software required. They
do not hang or crash at all even left for days. Government should use Linux as
OS and save hundreds of crores to the nation.

Is Linux too technical?
I would be interested in the question of ease of system administration...
which could be considered quality of Desktop Environment & various GUI's.
I'm not a good test subject [ no one here would be] I'm interested in digging around under the hood.

My wife, computerphobic, nonetheless loves her Chromebook and uses it every
day. She was startled when I told her that she was using Linux, which she
saw as something foreign that only geeks like me use. And Chromebooks,
which today account for some 20% of PC sales, are all running just enough
of GNU to run the browser, under Linux kernel 3.4. This must keep
Microsoft's execs up at night, as evidenced by their (typically tone-deaf)
"Scroogled" ad campaign. 20% of PCs sold today have no Windows tax!

Guys, drop it already! Linux has had workable, usable desktops (that are easy to manage) for about 20 years. I still have a copy of Caldera Linux (yeah, THAT caldera) from the late 90's I picked up at Brainshare. No harder to install than Windows, no harder to use. It included Netscape (Firefox to you youngsters) and Word Perfect (a superior sort of Word).

Lack of Linux penetration at the desktop isn't because there are no viable desktops, it's because:

a. Microsoft has all the manufacturers well in hand, so you get a 'free' copy of Windows with every PC
b. There are a couple dozen Linux distros out there
c. A lot of the applications, and, truth be told distros feel 'not quite finished'.
d. Apple is out there sucking up most of the 'anything but Microsoft' oxygen
e. Microsoft won't develop Office for Linux

Take care of problems a-d and Microsoft will grudgingly develop Office for Linux, just like they do for Mac. Hell, they're close to splitting the company, and about time. Separate the OS from the apps from the Internet services and the pieces will work better - and be worth more. Killing the court-mandated breakup of Microsoft wasn't the biggest mistake Bush Jr. made, but it still adds to the pile.

I'm with sepehr here, But I afraid of the day that microsoft accept the GPL or MIT or ... licenses! I think that days will be the best days for Microsoft!

And for this question, I think the worst things in linux world or better to say GPL licensed software worlds is dozen of distros.... and also lacks of standardization! Unfortunately these are the reason which people still using Windows... ?

Here is my opinion
Linux is available in different distributions
People here I am sure can name at least 20 linux distributions
and each has its versions
for example
Red hat has 4.3, 4.4 where the first number is the major number and the
number following the period is a minor number
so even if we look at major numbers we have 4,5,6 and I dont know how many
versions are available
so we have the situation that we have different distributions
like
Mint
Ubuntu
Knoppix
Red Hat
Centos
Oracle Enterprise Linux
SUSE

and within each we have different versions

but all are under the umbrella and are popularly called LINUX
if you go to the command prompt...and execute a command which is very well
known like
sort or find...it may work differently in different Distributions.
The command to add a printer or add more memory at times is so different
that this customizations are what is the issue.
Each vendor like Redhat or Suse or Ubuntu customizes linux in a different
way and method.

Hence the confusion and at times it is a very difficult proposition to an
ordinary user.
I have been using Unix and Linux and Windows for the past 20 years and at
times it takes days to resolve such issues.
I can imagine why users get afraid of Linux because of these issues and the
lack of standardization of Linux distributions
is a major issue IMHO

Here is my opinion
Linux is available in different distributions
People here I am sure can name at least 20 linux distributions
and each has its versions
for example
Red hat has 4.3, 4.4 where the first number is the major number and the
number following the period is a minor number
so even if we look at major numbers we have 4,5,6 and I dont know how many
versions are available
so we have the situation that we have different distributions
like
Mint
Ubuntu
Knoppix
Red Hat
Centos
Oracle Enterprise Linux
SUSE

and within each we have different versions

but all are under the umbrella and are popularly called LINUX
if you go to the command prompt...and execute a command which is very well
known like
sort or find...it may work differently in different Distributions.
The command to add a printer or add more memory at times is so different
that this customizations are what is the issue.
Each vendor like Redhat or Suse or Ubuntu customizes linux in a different
way and method.

Hence the confusion and at times it is a very difficult proposition to an
ordinary user.
I have been using Unix and Linux and Windows for the past 20 years and at
times it takes days to resolve such issues.
I can imagine why users get afraid of Linux because of these issues and the
lack of standardization of Linux distributions
is a major issue IMHO

@sepahrad
No,I don't think abnormal non-standard distors are the reason of windows popularity,there are so many standard distors too...
Did you heard Bill Gates saying this : 'I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it' ?
You can see this idea through the Windows Operating System,Windows is just an easy way to do it,at least it is known for this in normal users thoughts,but not in experts thoughts...

How many normal users want to implement high loaded networks?
How many normal users want to implement high loaded databases?
How many normal users want to do a job that needs Symmetric Multiple Processing?

they all want to connect to the internet with single click,they wanna see videos with single click...they wanna read books with single click...they wanna work in a pretty OS with a single click,single click,single click.

although there are so many user friendly distros out there,but most of the normal users prefer the old classic way (windows) to do their daily routines.

I like this discussion...
There are a two restaurants near me who are not doing well.
The owners keeps trying different things to get his business to succeed.
However things are not going well.

Linux is the same thing...for some reason...it is not popular...of course
people will give me numbers and numbers...however if
compare the Windows world to Linux you will agree that percentage wise
Linux is not popular.

I would love for people to discuss with an open mind why are people not
switching to Linux ?

I believe that rjngh2005 has it right. Product versions aside, his point about taking a huge amount of time to resolve simple issues like adding a printer are key issues. OK, you might argue that many distros use CUPS - but how much time have competent sysadmins spent on really basic tasks like just adding multiple NICs?
And while it seems that the world is rediscovering that a CLI is not a bad way to administer systems (e.g. PowerShell), even the difference in file locations between distros can be maddening ...

m> Product versions aside, his point about taking a huge amount of
m> time to resolve simple issues like adding a printer are key issues.

Depends on the version of Linux being used and the printer ( or any
other hardware for that matter ). Have found most to install without
too much trouble using Ubuntu 12.04 and if there has been any command
line work it's been a relatively simple matter of copy/paste from the
help section on the maker's web site. Yes some makes will resist, and
Lexmark in particular are well known for this, but then again many
older peripherals didn't make the cut to WinXP when it arrived, and
Windows 8 too, so nothing new there.

I can add that once I've set up users with Ubuntu they haven't looked
back at Windows again, and many have said what a breath of fresh air
it's been to use the computer without all the hassle / worry that they
had with Windows.

The strength of the GNU/Linux ecosystem lies in the diversity of distros,
not its weakness. Yes, different distros do things in different ways, but
the fact is that they all work (well, most of them). As far as adding a
printer goes, when I bought a new printer five years ago, I had to do a
fair amount of searching to get the printer performing as it should. Yes,
but when I install a new system today, I am able to get its driver
installed with no trouble at all.

That being said, I have had more trouble and annoyances with Windows 7
(wouldn't touch Windows 8 with a 50 foot CAT-5) than I do with my Kubuntu
box running MATE. Annoyances like a frozen mouse pointer and the inability
of Windows to install system updates while the system is running, therefore
the reboots. I only have to reboot a GNU/Linux system if a new graphics
driver is updated (same as Windows), there is a kernel update, or I have
installed a program like loadahead which must be started as a service
during startup.

I know nobody who uses a GNU/Linux system who has problems that make them
wish to return to a closed-source OS. The only reason (the ONLY reason) I
have Windows 7 running at all is to play games; IMHO, that's all Windows is
good for. That advantage, by the by, is shrinking daily.

I'm not with M$ Window! I just talking about disadvantages of gnu/Linux... Please don't be an irrational!
Most of the people are pathetic here or other places when we talking about Linux... Please don't be pathetic!

Now I'm 19, and my first encounter with gnu/Linux returned to 9-8 years ago (When I was 12-11)! When I asked my father to give me a CD of windows to change an OS of PC! At those days I was thinking OS=WINDOWS!!! But my father talked about Redhat with me and installed it on computer for me! That was horribly hard to work for me which I reinstall it with M$ Window$ on my PC!

But I came back to gnu/Linux world in 15 and working with it professionally from 18! And now I'm working with CentOS for any purpose ( I forgot windows!!!! )... and if you aren't pathetic person you will admit that gnu/Linux also has lot of problems like other OSs! We don't have ideal OS!

I think lack of standard is a big problem, because people spend their time on a project which will fail! And actually they wasted their time!!! like maemo distro (maemo.org) it's really an example of defeated project however it's a good! ( I have Nokia N900 mobile, I think just N900 N800 and N8 mobile use this distro ). And many other distros, because they don't have ideas for changing gnu/linux better they just want to have their own OSs!!!

Or how many commands gnu/Linux have for networking which many of them do the same work but with different name!!! I think programmer are wasting their time, what happens if redhat create a standard on command and programmers focus on them to developing the best tools on that field!

and many other non-standardize problems... I really & really love RMS but my problem with GNU Linux not Linux kernel!

I don't wish to punch a hole through the Apple fonbois collective reality distortion field, however Xerox (Menlo Park Project) actually developed the first GIU, and I believe did a lot to develop the mouse.
Sony also had their Walkman MP3 player before Apple had its $Pod!

Apple's use of NextStep in their development of the imac GUI is testament to the fact that Linux can be made just as, if not more, user friendly than Linux. The problem is that there are so many distros and GUI's such as Gnome and KDE, and this confuses people.

I'd argue there's no difference between distros that a end user would
notice. It's the GUI's on top that need to standardize on basic
functionality if they want linux to be ready for the desktop. It's a bit
embarrassing, but it took me -forever- to figure out I had to swipe the
mouse from the bottom upwards to unlock the desktop... Some profanity
was uttered in the general direction of the gnome team.

That and games. If I can't get Windows games to run I'll end up always
having a windows machine. It will also be the more powerful machine of
the two. If I have to choose at home, the game machine running Windows wins.

You suffered with the start button, and then never asked why the start button also served as the logout or shutdown button.

And then you had control panel. And the Registry.

Linux is sooo much easier, much much easier.

Are you able to stop comparing?

If you like menus, then Cinnamon or KDE is for you, if you like Icons, then Gnome is for you.
If you like a mix of both, then GNOME with tweaks is for you.

There are fewer different Linux distributions than there are car manufacturers. If you can
use one linux, you can use them all. If you can drive a car, you should be able to drive any car.
I feel that you have problems to drive.

And I have a question: From your text, If I can do all with GNOME why KDE or others are written?

If your reason is performance, I think in this new world performance is not matter particularly for end-users which have Corei7 processors that they don't use it more than 20%! I have Hildon(GNOME) desktop on my mobile (Nokia N900)! It has 600MHz CPU & 250 MB Ram but works perfectly!

You could look up Neal Stephenson's excellent book: "In the Beginning was the Command Line".

One of his analogies is the 3 car dealers at an intersection. One sells Ferraris - all one model, all one colour.

One sells Fords that are constantly back in the shop for upgrades, and very unreliable because all the service parts are bought in a market and need different bolt sizes to attach everything.

The Linux franchise does not sell cars. He just leaves them on the forecourt with the keys in. They are indestructible cross-country vehicles that do 1000 miles to the gallon. They almost never go wrong, but if they do, there is an army of mechanics who will come out and fix it for you, for free.

Windows, when it started out in the 90s, was a revolution and people ate
it up. Now it is not the same, Windows 8 is pathetic and really only for
touch screens and 7, which is still usable, has some serious faults. The
continuous upgrades that will not let you access the computer until
installed is really annoying. It will also not recognize hardware that
was recognizable in XP. I had a scanner that was working with Linux Mint
and XP but would not work under any circumstances under Windows 7. The
drivers are not available for 7.

I started with Linux Ubuntu about 7 years ago but did dabble with Suse
Linux back in the 90s. At the beginning with Ubuntu, there was a
vertical learning curve and it was a headache. The Wi-Fi would not work
without some serious tweaking. Installing a printer was also a problem.
The command line is a learning curve but reminds me of the days of DOS.
I use it on a regular basis and I can assure you all it is not at all
mind boggling and very simple to use.

Today the Linux scene has changed completely. I switched from Ubuntu
when Unity came and went with Linux Mint. Everything works straight from
the simple install. Wi-Fi recognized immediately. My printer was
instantly recognized by make and model number. The keyboard language;
mine is in Spanish, was also recognized. Windows 7 did not recognize
this and it was a separate install.

I have a 12 year old grandson who has been using Linux since he was 6
years old. This was my doing. His new secondary school IT teacher told
him that he is on his own with Linux as they use Windows and Mac. I
bought him a laptop which I got with no operating system, this is no
easy task as all the main computer distributors in Spain insist on
offloading you with Windows 8. I installed Linux Mint and Windows 7 as a
dual boot and the feedback I got from the young man is that his IT
teacher was really impressed.

It's hard and sometimes very tricky do the switch. The corporations prefer not to depend on Technicals gurus. Windows it's easy to implement and exist to many training couses (online and presentials) that are hard to see on linux

No matter what hardware do you have, linux works fine. More and best hardware, more and best performance.

The point (that you mention indirectly) is that with Linux you don't need a core i7, you can do same things with a Core 2 DUO and hardly you can find some difference. But the cost are less than half respect to Core i7!

Your timeline is off a bit. Windows was developed in the 80's in response to Apple's Macintosh. As for device recognition, results vary. If drivers don't exist they don't exist. Just try setting up an HP laser jet II on much of anything. As for 'everything has changed' with linux, not entirely true. For the hardware of the day Caldera linux (yes, THAT Caldera) installed in 1997 with pretty much everything, with an install that was just as simple as Ubuntu is today.

From Paul's: You could look up Neal Stephenson's excellent book: "In the Beginning was the Command Line".

The book didn't change my life, but affirmed a direction. The command line in this case is the shell. And a long-held principle of mine: "my threshold of pain is three". when i find myself doing the nearly identical job for a third time, an alarm goes off: "isn't it time to generalize", or capture this in a useful way.

The command line leads directly to functions, and collections of functions soon replace scripts.

My milestones, some pre-linux:

1/15/1979 "discovered" unix in Palo Alto, CA, with Ford Aero.

2/24/1998 put all my one-line functions in a library called "henny", after henny youngman, the master of the one-liner.

The Xerox Alto (and later Xerox Star ) was an early personal computer developed at Xerox PARC in 1973. It
was the first computer to use the desktop metaphor and mouse-driven
graphical user interface (GUI).

In 1981 Xerox introduced a pioneering product, Star, incorporating many of PARC's innovations. Although not commercially
successful, Star greatly influenced future developments, for example at Apple, Microsoft and Sun Microsystems.[4]

Jobs and several Apple employees, including Jef Raskin, visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto.

Apple Lisa won the race in 1983 and became the first personal computer sold to the public with a GUI.

I think the sale price to Lenovo was ~2.3 billion and they sold another
part of Motorola for over 2 billion in change earlier. The patent
portfolio was valued at ~5billion leaving them short of the buy price
by about 1 billion. They kept 90% of the patents but transferred about
2000 to Lenovo.

This of course is not chump change but significantly less than 9 billion.
Bob

the quote "A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you're talking _real_ money" was attributed to Sen Everett Dirkson (R, Illinois), from the '50s. A search of his web side reveals he never said it, but accepts the reference as if he had.

I can describe a fundamental way most linux distros are more technical than they need to be
multiple places settings are accessed
take one of the more windows like DE's KDE
the boot menu will be controlled by the distro, so far so good, single instance
move to the login screen, parallel system
users/accounts, parallel systems
for a user trying to administer his own system, the fact that there are parallel control panels, ups the complexity by more like a factor of ten.

Ubun is a bit better, but the corporate nonsense keeps me from suggesting or setting up ubun [or anything downstream] systems. I have found no user friendly debian based distros, that were not based on ubun. Unity made it very clear MS[shuttleworth] was in charge & the beta testers [users] had no real say.

I think you may be surprised to discover that people all around you, including yourself, have actually been using Linux technology in a variety of ways, probably without even realizing it, and the products they use are things they've been relying on for years now.

Examples: routers, many (perhaps even most) use some version of either a Linux or UNIX-like kernel. Numerous Web pages are hosted by UNIX, Linux, and BSD Web servers. Many Internet Service Providers (ISPs) run the core of their businesses through Linux or BSD servers.

Major Email providers, such as Yahoo and Google, and their search engines, have long used Linux (and UNIX systems before that). Even Microsoft's Hotmail was, for a very long time, hosted by UNIX servers (and if those are still around, they are probably Linux servers by now).

Big companies like Amazon and Facebook run the majority, if not their entire, businesses using Linux systems.

Android, the most popular system used on phones and tablets, uses a Linux kernel. Once modified from a standard kernel, it's back to being supported by an existing, supported Linux kernel.

Both of Google's operating systems that they sell in actual consumer products, Android, and ChromeOS have Linux kernels and have since day one.

So back end services in databases and network services have used Linux for decades. Over the past decade, consumer routers and home appliances have widely used Linux. For over half a decade, the number one consumer hand held communication devices have used Linux. So whether Linux is on the desktop or not, in reality it is being more widely used on a daily basis than the traditional desktop already, so what does it matter whether it supercedes the use of Windows on the desktop as we know it; arguably it already has; most of that world runs Android with a Linux kernel, the rest of that world runs iOS, which has a BSD-based (Unix-like) kernel.

We're using UNIX and Linux now, and we have for a couple of decades now; it's real and nearly everyone who touches electronic devices already uses it. Who cares if it is on the "desktop"; it's on just about everything else that we use already.

Linux has been around for 2 decades, so while technically correct to say 'decades' it implies a longer period of time. Oh, and don't forget that many mainframes run linux, either as the only OS or as multiple guest OSes.

IOS is not 'unix like', it actually has a BSD unix base like OS X does. There is a subtle difference.

So yeah, if you combine Android, IOS and OS X computers the vast majority of computers today run either a linux or unix variant. Oh, and add a few watches, newish cars, control systems?.

Do bear in mind that the Linux kernel makes running GNU (which is the
desktop system we all use) possible. We who are using a Linux distro are *all
*using GNU (GNU's Not UNIX), which makes all the stuff we like to do
possible on our desktops, whether we use GNOME, MATE, KDE, Enlightenment,
Unity, LXDE, XCFE and Cinnamon (and I know I left Your Favorite Desktop
out) possible.

The same kernel that runs ChromeOS and Android will run GNU.

Now, about the "too techy" stuff: I will lay a bet that a computer novice
will find ANY GNU/Linux desktop easier to learn from ground zero than
Windows 8, which requires a third-party program like Start8 to even be
usable (I can testify to this).

Of course it is too technical for the "everyday" user - you know, the people that use a computer because their job requires them to, or to browse the web or stay connected with friends. We're not talking about geeks who compile their own kernels, or wade through 50 page man entries to perform some menial task. Sure you can give a properly configured Linux environment with a suitably "Windowsesque" UI to a non-technical user, but you will inevitably have to support them when a change is required. Linux has made great strides since I started using it 20 years ago, but Windows beats it hands down.
Think about it - Linux with all of its perceived technical, performance and security advantages, and free licensing to boot! Why has it not made any significant traction against Windows over the last decade with "everyday" home or business users? <insert standard response here about Microsoft tyranny or how 2014 will (finally) be the year of Linux>

Linux has failed to reach the desktop simply because people are used to
paying the Microsoft tax on their PCs; in fact, a lot of people think that
Windows is gratis, when it's added to the price of the PC. Besides that,
people want the programs they have been running on previous versions of
Windows, even when that doesn't happen (Falcon 3 won't run on XP, and
Dungeon Siege, a Microsoft game, won't run on Windows 7, to name but two
examples). They don't want to get an "insanely great" computer at an
insanely high price (which is why Apple desktops are about 6% of all
desktops) when they can get what is widely considered (among the general
public) as an inferior (and highly porous) OS which they might not like
(every other Windows since 3.11 has been hated: 3.11--loved. 95--hated.
98--loved. Me--hated. XP--loved. Vista--hated. 7--loved. 8--hated. See a
pattern?), but which will do the job. And the porosity of Windows has led
to a multibillion dollar malware-prevention industry and a corresponding
multibillion dollar malware creation industry. And yet people continue to
use it.

Also, Microsoft has, for the last 14 or so years, widely spread fear,
uncertainly and doubt (FUD) about GNU/Linux, and you'll still find people
saying, "Linux doesn't work." I usually answer, "Yes, it doesn't work.
That's why Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Reddit, and Amazon, not to
mention Wall Street and IBM's Watson hypercomputer all run on Linux,
because it doesn't work."

Hell. What made me convinced back in 2008 was the fact that I could boot
from a CD and get online and print without loading drivers was due to the
fact that GNU/Linux "just works."

Which is why Microsoft spreads FUD (currently it's their typically
tone-deaf "Scroogled" campaign); open source OS (whether GNU/Linux, or
Android, is their worst nightmare. I couldn't believe it when ZDnet praised
Microsoft for making Windows 8.1 "free." As though any Microsoft service
pack (which is what 8.1 is) has had to be paid for.

I've put linux on laptops for several pensioners. Almost no support has
been needed, it looks after itself and keeps them safe. Windows users?
They need help every couple of months, almost all of them.

I have taught seniors who, during their career, never used a computer. In the seniors club we installed Mint16 with Cinnamon or Fedora with Gnome. Since they did not have to unlearn anything, there was fantastic enthusiasm and acceptance.

tc> I've put linux on laptops for several pensioners. Almost no
tc> support has been needed, it looks after itself and keeps them
tc> safe. Windows users? They need help every couple of months, almost
tc> all of them.

Ditto - those who claim Linux doesn't work for the non-technical user
haven't used it as a non-technical user would :-)

As for why it's not more widely used. Covered this before but
basically an easily useable GUI for Linux has been late in coming, as
has wide hardware support, during which time Windows has become the
dominant OS. There are those trying to address the balance but that
Redmond behemoth is a large beast to overcome. All I can repeat is the
comments of those I've switched - "A welcome breath of fresh air", "So
easy to use", "Why did I put up with Windows for so long".

There are those with specific needs that only Windows will address, or
at least without learning a new way of working, and those people have
the option of a dual-boot or Windows as a virtual OS. Even that isn't
the nightmare it used to be setting up !!

I honestly didn't know there was such a large pensioner revolt against Windows - my mistake.
I think you missed my point - there is a big difference between being given a configured Linux distro with an easy to use GUI and supporting them afterwards, versus being self-sufficient (i.e. buying your own PC/laptop, adding your own apps and devices over time, managing your ever growing content etc).
You said it yourself Barry - "an easily useable GUI for Linux has been late in coming, as
has wide hardware support". In other words, Linux is great if you have the interest and ability to understand it (which I think covers everyone on this forum), but is still too complex for non-technical users (the vast majority) to be self sufficient.
The stuff about people thinking Windows is free or being used to paying "the Microsoft tax" is just nonsense. Give people some credit. Business's look to cut costs wherever possible - there MUST be a reason they are not switching to Linux (apart from those pesky blue-rinsers that I am going to have to keep my eye on ;-)

C> I honestly didn't know there was such a large pensioner revolt
C> against Windows - my mistake.

LOL - not the point at all, just saying that there *is* an alternative
now.

C> I think you missed my point - there is a big difference between
C> being given a configured Linux distro with an easy to use GUI and
C> supporting them afterwards, versus being self-sufficient (i.e.
C> buying your own PC/laptop, adding your own apps and devices over
C> time, managing your ever growing content etc).

Sure it's easy to buy a Windows system pre-loaded, put in a few
installation discs / download programs. However that ease comes at a
cost in terms of time spent scanning for viruses/malware, cleaning off
junk files and general maintenance that if it isn't done your nice new
system grinds to a halt and/or gets generally frustrating to use or
your web browser decides to take you anywhere than where you want to
go. PC techs see this all the time and whilst it's possible to try and
educate users they often fail to keep it up - to be fair, this pays
the bills so guess I can't really complain if users don't wish to
change. However, the ones that I have moved onto Ubuntu haven't looked
back and whilst there's the cost of that setting up, in the long run
they save time and money plus if they do need some help they are more
than willing to get me in to sort it. In that respect you are right
that users are often unable to 'go it alone' with Linux but there are
several who have taken to it like the proverbial duck to water and do
upgrades / installs without any assistance, and the mess that some get
into by 'going it alone' with Windows defies description at times.

What I would say is that as time goes on and more people see it in use
then the mystery will dissipate, as well as the fear of trying it out.

C> You said it yourself Barry - "an easily useable GUI for Linux has
C> been late in coming, as has wide hardware support". In other words,
C> Linux is great if you have the interest and ability to understand
C> it (which I think covers everyone on this forum), but is still too
C> complex for non-technical users (the vast majority) to be self
C> sufficient.

Point I'm trying to make is that the vast majority of users aren't
interested in understanding Windows either and have extremely simple
needs - web browsing / e-mail / photos / documents and spreadsheets
which the base installation of Linux handles. Printing support is much
improved too and many are plug-and-go, no need to install anything.
Same with a lot of web cameras - leave the CD in the box, just plug
the thing in and it's working. Where there is some installations
needed usually the relevant manufacturer's web sites have the
instructions to follow.

C> The stuff about people thinking Windows is free or being used to
C> paying "the Microsoft tax" is just nonsense. Give people some
C> credit.

Ok, so Windows comes with the system so the cost is transparent to the
user but the cost of MS Office is often a shock "I only want to write
a few letters" so even on Windows systems I advocate Libre Office :-)

C> Business's look to cut costs wherever possible - there MUST be a
C> reason they are not switching to Linux.

Business is a whole different ball game and particularly if locked
into proprietary programs / hardware that doesn't work on Linux. Also
many office documents make heavy use of macros and porting those to
Open Source isn't a trivial matter. However, it is happening and some
do a good job whilst others make a hash of it and have to revert to
Windows again, even if temporarily whilst they work out what went
wrong before trying again. With the ever increasing cost of licensing
Microsoft products then the lure of Open Source gets stronger and
whilst there may be a short term hit on the bottom line the long term
gains can tip the balance.

I think for the most part it is definitely ready for prime time. I have been using it daily for a couple of years on my laptop and for the most part I am very happy with it. I think the weakest link with using Linux is documentation. Many developers create programs but write documentation that is too technical for most people. Documentation needs to be written as if a person has never seen or used Linux. YouTube is a great source for figuring out how to use many Linux based programs though, The only issues I have run into is when trying to do something out of the ordinary like capture video to edit or setup a VPN.

my daughter went to College to study Computer science...
She got convinced by people that a Apple mac was the best thing in the
world compared to Windows

She purchased a Apple Mac
6 months later she was using a MAC and a Windows machine...

why ? --- Because Yes you can do everything on a mac but it is much
tougher..
The assignments given by the professors...we easier done on a windows
machine compared to a MAC

The same thing...applies to Linux also...

People who are die hard fans of Linux do not realise the time spent in
living in a different world...
For example you will have spreadsheets and power points and emails and
everything else that the
windows business user needs and to mess with dual boots and stuff like
that...It just requires a lot of patience and time

Productivity ...is what is the key...and this cannot be accomplished in the
Linux world
specially with the CRAZY number of Distros

My daughter seems to have gotten along fine, using a Mac for her
college activities. Maybe Windows-centric assignments are peculiar to
the professoriate at any given institution. Of course, she wasn't in
computer science--chemistry and physics were more congenial.

She was able to use the Windows Office-type applications for Macintosh,
where it mattered.

For my own part, I find using the LibreOffice equivalent formats for
the Windows Office applications generally works in our business
setting. But, apart from UNIX-style server applications, web hosting,
and the like, getting the business to install Linux across the board to
the user level would be no easy task. (Microsoft cut them a deal,
wedging its way in as an e-mail processor/provider, among other
things.)

On the other hand, to the extent that employees' enthusiasm for
hand-held devices on a BYOD basis infiltrates the workplace, Linux will
likely be sneaking in under the hood.

Huh? Mine have had a couple problems - generally in translating iWork apps to things like Powerpoint, but very few problems going from Office for Mac to Office for Windows -and back. I've done the same thing my entire career (25 years), starting with a Radio Shack Color Computer, upgraded to an Atari ST, then migrated to a Mac in the early 90's. Oh, I've had Windows machines, linux servers - Netware too - and rarely had conversion problems. Maybe it's just that I'm practiced at it, but generally the process is:

On the mac, double click on the file
Save the file in a Windows-friendlhy format

On Windows, open the file

Why in the heck, if she's just using Office files does she need dual boot? Even if that is needed spend the tiny bit to get something like Parallels and run Windows as a guest OS. Quicker and easier without the hassles of dual boot, if you have something that absolutely, positively must use a Windows application.

Nonsense @rjngh2005 I have approximately equal productivity on my
business linux desktop as my windows counterparts here in my office.
Sure there's a little give and take like all things, some tasks are
slightly faster on one OS than another. But fundamentally most of the
Linux GUIs give perfectly usable desktops for business users.

As for that having anything to do with distros I don't see the
connection. Just because I'm using linux does not mean I'm changing
distro every day or week or even year. There's no need unless examining
and testing the distro's capabilities is your task?

r> People who are die hard fans of Linux do not realise the time spent
r> in living in a different world... For example you will have
r> spreadsheets and power points and emails and everything else that
r> the windows business user needs

Unless the documents / spreadsheets are using macros then these work
just as well on Open Office / Libre Office. Even if e-mail is on an
exchange server it can be accessed using Linux so that's not a bar.
Also let's not forget that complex documents created in one version of
MS Office don't always port nicely to other versions of MS Office and
need some degree of re-writing.

However I'll give you that often business users are locked into
Windows due to proprietary software that isn't compatible so Linux
isn't a suitable platform for them. However there are a great many
users who would be able to switch without a problem and leave the
malware riddled world of Windows behind :-)

It all depends on the user and what the user expects / needs to do on
their computer whether Linux would be a suitable alternative.

I generally have to use a Windows-based desktop at work, not so much because I want to; these are simply the most readily available systems for the jobs in my area - most of the time.

I do see a lot more of Linux somewhere in the footprint at work these days. Out of the past three jobs I've had, I think there was some evidence of a Linux presence in all three of them, though it is a bit disconcerting how much Windows Server has inched into places that could possibly be served safely with fewer gyrations.

At home, I've been able to use Linux exclusively for nearly a decade and a half, and all the more so now with more Web-based applications and fewer applications that must be run natively. But with the Open Office and more recently, the Libre Office suites, sending that resume or reading some Word document or even a Power Point slide presentation is something I can now routinely handle in Libre Office. A decade ago I could do that, but occasionally I'd run into formatting issues. Today I rarely even have to think about it; reading and exchanging documents works well; besides, Google Docs make yet another media for exchanging information; I've done it and they work fine.

The OS has become less and less of an issue. For me at home, I run Linux because I can run it for the cost of my broadband network, an expense I have to bear anyway. No other hidden charges, and my experience allows me to avoid any unwanted surprises. For someone "new" to free software, yes, there is the cost of learning; it's not prohibitive by any means.

I beg to differ, I spend my time considering the correct tool for the
job. If linux fails to be that, it won't be used.

The general response to people who don't use linux is one or a
combination of these things:
1) They've not heard of linux at all
2) Their impression is that its for geeks
3) Windows does everything they need and its free
This is mostly influenced - if you will - by a marketing issue. No-one
advertises linux to the general consumer and very little mainstream
press mentions occur. Almost the only computers you can buy are running
windows, this is the only thing they generally have any experience of.
So I demonstrate Linux, most people go "wow". This removes issues 1 and
2 almost instantly.
I like to think my mind is open :)

> I took a poll, and the nearest 50 people to me have both Windows 7 and RedHat on their desks.

> One OS to communicate with the corporate infrastructure and the organization that tries to run > > the company.

> The other OS to keep the lights, heat, water, sewage, hospitals, elevators, freezers on for 3 > > > million people, 24/7.

> Now, which of those is the important (life-critical) job, and which OS do we run it on?

Hi Paul,
Given the forum we're on, I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that you are using RedHat to manage/monitor critical infrastructure. Please tell me that it doesn't run on those 50 users desks, or tell me where you are so I can take suitable precautions if I visit.

The obvious question - if RH is the best choice for the infrastructure task, why are you not using it for office productivity purposes as well?

Hi Paul_Pedant,
It's interesting your survey was conducted on a sample of 50. But just a few questions, please
1. Was it a statistical survey?
2. What sampling method did you adopt in arriving at 50?
3. What method of analysis was adopted?
4. To what extent should we trust the drawn conclusion?
Sorry, just curious.
Thanks.

People do not wish to get into arguments...
They visit the restaurant...they like it...they return...they dont like it
...they do not return...
Even if the owner/ headwaiter asks for feedback about the food...they
say...Yes...the food was good...everything was good
however they do not return.

Similar with Linux

People do not wish to get into arguments or discussions with a diehard fan
of Linux.
They do not want to be confrontational. So they just take a decision when
they want to buy the next computer for their house / kid and they buy Windows.

How many people do you know who have gone out and purchased a Linux machine
for their home use.
Is this because Linux machines are not available at Best Buy or Frys or
Office depot or Officemax or Staples or Costco?
Even so...they are definitely available on all the retailer's websites or
DELL or HP website.

The retailers have stopped carrying Linux Machines because they just don't
sell. For the retailers it is a simple case of inventory and moving boxes and
making money. If it sells...they carry it ...if it does not they look for something that
sells.

To the people who aren't liking this discussion - the OP posed a question for discussion. There will be diehards and novices participating, and everything in between. I've chime in and say the viewpoints are interesting ... and giving me some ideas.

If you are talking about the generic "a forum" N. then I suppose the answer is yes. However, I was under the impression that one named "linuxadmin" might be in support of Linux.

Given that I have been wrong in the past, perhaps this is one of those times. So here I am blissfully unaware of the actual facts . . . assuming we participate herein for the support of each other in that "Open System" environment. Did I get it wrong?

I'm sure it is lots of fun to argue and flame one another over the merits of one OS vs. another ad nauseam. But there must be a forum or newsgroup (showing my age) with the name: "let's argue over the merits of the various OS applications" to which you could take this discussion. Just saying . . .

r> How many people do you know who have gone out and purchased a Linux
r> machine for their home use. Is this because Linux machines are not
r> available at Best Buy or Frys or Office depot or Officemax or
r> Staples or Costco? Even so...they are definitely available on all
r> the retailer's websites or DELL or HP website.

Checked both Dell and HP sites recently ? Dell have two Ubuntu
laptops, both over ???1000 and 256Gb SSD - hardly mainstream. HP have
only Android or ChromeOS under the 'Linux' banner.

So yes - the reason you don't find users buying Linux systems is they
aren't there to buy unless you specifically go looking. Everything is
Windows 8 and it's been 'Windows Only' for so long that Joe Public
isn't aware that there's any alternative other than Mac, which needs
deep pockets and signing your soul to the devil ( though Microsoft are
rapidly heading in that direction ).

r> The retailers have stopped carrying Linux Machines because they
r> just don't sell.

There was one major experiment with Linux for sale and that was with
Dell and Ubuntu 9.04 - it failed partly because Ubuntu 9.04 had poor
hardware support and also Microsoft got uppity about it and threatened
to cut Dell off from Windows if they continued to sell anything other
than Windows. Having Ubuntu only on some high priced equipment and
only a small selection isn't a threat to Windows so it's tolerated but
if it was offered as an option on all desktops / laptops you'd soon
see the heavy mob descend again. Protecting their products by fair
means or foul has been a Microsoft trait since they started, and gives
a small army of lawyers a very good living.

Those vendors never started selling them in numbers anyway; they didn't
even advertise the fact that they were available and still do not. No,
Linux machines are not available in shops since Microsoft generally have
exclusivity deals with the large vendors - if they want to sell Windows
with their computers, they can *only* sell Windows. And people don't ask
for Linux because (as I said in prior replies) most simply do not know
its available.

And I'm not being confrontational, I'm simply debating the points you
make :) Let's keep it up - debate is good!

When are you going to stop making excuses and blaming external factors for your beloved OSes poor adoption on the client side? If Linux is really so superior and Windows the trainwreck you claim it to be, why have they failed to deliver on their annual promises for the last 10 years to "eat Microsoft's lunch"? Do you really believe the reason Linux isnt offered on PCs is because MS is pressuring the vendors? Sounds like a multi-billion dollar antitrust lawsuit to me. If you've got any evidence, there is an army of lawyers that would be happy for a piece of that action.
Nope - the real reason is there is no market for it. Can you imagine the sales process?
- which distro would you like?
- the latest version? No we dont have 9.04 - we only just got our standard build up to 9.03
- would you like Gnome, KDE or any of dozens of other environments?
- which particular set of dozens of similar apps with ridiculous names that dont relate to their function would you like installed?
- what version of libraries do you need?

See the problem? Can you imagine selling this to a non-tech user? The vendors know that the first thing a Linux buyer is going to do is blow it away and put their own on, so why not put a standard Windows image on and satisfy both markets?

The trick to Linux success on the desktop is to stop making excuses and address your issues, engage with normal users (not just other Linux geeks) and innovate instead of trying to make Linux look like and be compatible with Windows.

C> The trick to Linux success on the desktop is to stop making excuses
C> and address your issues, engage with normal users (not just other
C> Linux geeks) and innovate instead of trying to make Linux look like
C> and be compatible with Windows.

Agreed - that's why I'm not only a user of Ubuntu but trying in my own
small way to grow it, as are many others. You say Linux should
innovate not emulate - so isn't nibbling at Windows in a slow but
insidious manner somewhat innovative and not what they'd expect ?

Yes there's been a lot of 'This is the year of Linux on the Desktop'
over the years but you'll have noticed this isn't as prevalent as it
was. Reason for it was the growth of the usable GUI and in fact the
die-hard Linux Geek is vehemently opposed to that direction and want
to keep it as a backwater command line riddled OS. To be fair many
versions are still like that but there are several that have taken the
desktop GUI to levels that many would not have believed possible. A
single click to install a program ? Pure heresy to the die-hard Linux
Geek !

Again I re-iterate that I have several Ubuntu users and whilst they
needed a little guidance at first they have been using it successfully
ever since. In fact I get more requests for help from folks faced with
Windows 8 <lol>

> You say Linux should innovate not emulate - so isn't nibbling at Windows in a slow but insidious manner somewhat innovative and not what they'd expect

Copying is never innovation, but I understand the need to do it to cater to people that learned to use a Windows PC. Microsoft have broken with tradition with Win8 and alienated a large number of people that have become thoroughly accustomed to the XP UI. I understand why they did it, but change is hard. Like going from the totally insecure XP to the far more secure Win7 - via the bag 'o nails that was Vista. But I'm getting way off topic :-)
Point being, there is an opportunity now to win over users before they become wed to whatever the MS UI becomes. Just like Apple nailed MS and Blackberry with their amazingly simple and intuitive iOS UI. What I think holds Linux back is the overwhelming choice and lack of any standardization, which makes it a no-go zone for all but carefully managed non-tech users. That is both Linux strength and weakness. You can put a shiny skin over it, but it is all arcane config files and scripting under the hood.

now now i just remember when i try to install application in linux. At first, it really took me a time before i can succesfully installed it. Indeed, out there i know there is pkgs.org for instance who provided us instant package to "one click install". Though, it still not cover all apps in linux, but that's very compromising for linux world i think.

I based my survey methodology on a previous post "How about you ask 10 people that you know...". I just walked round my section at work. Every desk has a Windows 7 PC on it (desktop or laptop), and a RedHat box under it (Sun i86 or Dell).

It's a very skewed sample - every person has both skill sets, the average length of service is about 15 years, although the degree of specialisation varies.

We don't use Linux systems for office stuff because they are locked down with a installed pre-pack so the critical system can not be tainted. It is also made extremely difficult to transfer data in either direction.

We don't use Windows for critical systems because that represents a totally unacceptable risk to life.

I was in a Staples store yesterday and met another sixty-someting man, who
mentioned that his wife is struggling with Windows 8. I asked him if he'd
installed Start8, which at least makes Windows 8 somewhat usable. He said,
"Oh yes, but she's still having a lot of trouble navigating her system. I
use Windows 7 and I'm here to get my computer fixed."

And people, who have no trouble learning iOS or Android, shy away from
learning an OS which has been attacked by Microsoft over the lest fifteen
years, having spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about Linux at every
opportunity. I mention to people that, if you don't like a Linux GUI, it's
a simple matter to install a different one, and they act like that's too
techie for them.

And people feel joined at the hip to Microsoft Office, and I've been using
Open/Libre Office for longer than I've been using Linux.

You've seen films like China Syndrome, maybe a documentary about a power control centre. We have a control centre that covers around 7000 square miles, city, town and hill country. We have remote readings from around 70,000 bits of kit and can control about 30,000 bits of switchgear remotely. For stuff that is not cost-effective to wire up, we rely on consumer call-ins, and we have a call centre here too. All that stuff runs on a bunch of servers over private networks.

It's a distributed system, and all the control engineers, telemetry management, asset management, support and development roles use RedHat workstations for their various tasks. There is sufficient security and isolation controls to make all these operations safe.

I'm just a Data Monkey (Third Class) now. My previous job was monitoring the National control room system up close and personal, which used to give me cold sweats when I needed to be in as root.

To give another angle to this story perhaps it would help if all read
the article that I wrote and that was kindly published in the January
edition of the Linux Full Circle Magazine. The article is on page 35 and
can be found at:http://fullcirclemagazine.org/

r> Huh....Exclusivity deals...They sell Apple products too... Frys has
r> Apple and so does Best buy

Not the same thing and you know it. Apple has always had total control
of hardware whereas Microsoft has only supplied the operating system
installed on hardware produced by others. So restricting them to
Windows through licensing deals that are restrictive makes marketing
sense to them because any alternative operating system supplied with a
system hits their bottom line. Also Apple and Microsoft have licensing
deals between them such as iTunes on Windows and Office on Mac so it's
more 'friendly rivalry' with them. There can be no such deal with
Linux as there's no central body that oversees every distro. Plus we
all saw what happened to Xandros after they tried to do a deal with
Microsoft when they rattled their "patent violation" sabre, which in
the end was just so much hot air. Red Hat paid a fee, Debian told them
to shove it where the sun don't shine.

It was a pretty misplaced original post by @rjingh. A few areas (printing, networks, volume administration) can vary. About 95% of commands are consistent in Linux, more so than between say AIX, Solaris, HP-UX.

Linux is way more consistent that the variations between XP, Vista, Win7, Win8.

@rjngh2005
"if Linux was a really viable option then there would be one major version
and would really be adopted.

However there are so many books on Linux and the commands do not work in
real life because the commands are all distro dependent."

What commands are you referring? Linux is essentially a clone of Unix (like FreeBSD). It uses the same commands. Granted, if you are working with something like packages from the command line, you have a couple of different commands. But all the basic "bread and butter" commands are the same regardless of distro. What typically is different may be the desktop packaged and/or the packages included in the installation. With Ubuntu based (which in itself is based on Debian) distributions, you have the Synaptic Package Manager and the Software Center. There you can search and find what you want and check it, click on install and it will automatically download and install . As easy as that.

As far as packages, there is decent selection for the average home user or even small business user. How many home users do you see really using Microsoft Office? Those that do, the vast majority can use a packager like LibreOffice (or one of the other free office packages). The typical average user does not know how to write a macro for Excel (or any other spreadsheet program) and, generally, find creating and using a spreadsheet beyond their scope of understanding --- too much effort to read the documentation. The same with using a word processor. They write an e-mail using either "Compose" or "Reply". Watch a typical user using an Android (Linux based). What do they do? Browse the internet, find a menu for a restaurant, reply (or compose) an e-mail, play games, etc. Androids use icons (as well as iPads and other iDevices) - it is similar to Windows 3.1/95/XP/7/etc. icons. Probably one reason why Windows 8 is not selling that well (and why Unity has dr
awn so much flack).

Do you have a cell phone? If so, chances are very, very good it is Linux/FreeBSD based (iOS is based on FreeBSD is my understanding).

if Linux was a really viable option then there would be one major version
and would really be adopted.

This comment is miles off the mark. The argument that Linux needs a single major distro is specious at best as is the idea that it's not currently a viable option.

Linux is already a viable option as evidenced by the estimated 29 million users in businesses and homes all over the world who use it on a daily basis. If Linux (and this will NEVER HAPPEN) ever did go to a single major distro, then Linux would die a well deserved death. The very idea of a single way to do Linux misses the point of Linux in the first place. Being able to change the OS in to a tool specific to your needs is the strength of Linux... not a weakness.

To make it a bit clearer.
You get a specific linux distribution for a few reasons, these are mine:
1) It is stable enough for what you plan to do with it.
2) It has the software you want installed.
3) You can easily get additional software you will eventually want from
distribution supported and tested packages.
4) The community is vibrant, proactive and gets fixes and new shiny toys
published and fixed often enough for you.

If the distribution gets lazy or out of touch, you can switch. The
software doesn't care. There are many choices, which seems confusing at
first, but it is the fact that there -are- so many choices that makes
linux a sane choice. The user base doesn't say "oh well, someone needs
to fix this, maybe the Gods will smile and I can get some work done
after patch Tuesday." Instead a few dozen people fix it, a choice is
made by a gatekeeper about which fix is best, implemented, tested by a
few hundred people around the world and rolled into a update that runs
the morning after testing. Hundreds of users comment on the quality of
the patch the next day, with thousands listening in on the discussion.
And new ideas are generated.

1. There are plenty of opinionated people still out there who like to get their point across.
2. There are still plenty of people who use proprietary software.
3. There are also plenty of people who use alternatives to proprietary software, including other proprietary alternatives, and freely available alternatives as well.
4. Whatever we happen to use, we are resistant to change unless either forced into it or something serious causes us to change our mind.

What kinds of things lead to change?

Some ideas:

1. We are poor and we cannot afford anything else.
2. We are upset with what we've been using to the point that we want to try something else.
3. We are either "enlightened" or somehow become "open minded", willing to do things differently than we have in the past.

Why else do people either stick to what they've always done or try something different when it comes to computer software, especially the core operating system?

@rjngh2005 - What does that have to do with the price of tea in Outer Mongolia? If Linux had been around in the late 70s, early 80s with half the environmental capability it has today, you probably would never had heard of Microsoft. With the deals it has made with the H/W makers (in the desktop), it is nearly impossible to go to a retail store and buy a PC without Windows. Unlike 45 years ago, the courts look the other way when it comes to monopolistic practices. Do you think Macs would be 10% if Apple didn't make its own H/W?

BTW, I am curious as to what you consider "Mobile". Because the number of cell phones and tablets running Android (Linux) and iOS are sure greater than 5% of the market. See http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2645115 . Cell phones are in the billion range while PCs and notebooks are not even close! They are even projecting the tablet market alone will sell nearly as many tablets as PC sales this year and will surpass by next year (and, most likely IMO, it won't be Window tablets).

To give another angle to this very interesting story perhaps it would
help if all read
the article I wrote, My Story, and that was kindly published in the January
edition of the Linux Full Circle Magazine. The article is in Edition 81,
is on page 35 and
can be found at:http://fullcirclemagazine.org/
<http://fullcirclemagazine.org/>

The numbers I gave are from some website
Linux is still just 5 percent of the market

Some website huh? That's a great source. I use some website for all my data.

Seriously. The numbers change greatly depending on who is reporting and what criteria are bing used. For example, in the mobile market Linux is between 70% and 85%.
For web clients Linux is between 6% and 14%. As you can see these numbers vary wildly and should not at all be considered a reliable metric.

But, if you really want to rely on numbers, your 5% is way way off. More consumer devices run Linux than any other OS. Also once you get to the server, mainframe, and supercomputer worlds, Linux dominates the competition hands down.

However, this is a discussion about whether or not Linux is too technical for everyday use and has nothing at all to do with current market share.

To follow up on William's post, the reasons that Linux is in so many areas, including the all important consumer space, come down to:

no licensing fees required (lowers end product cost)

it can be configured to run on hardware as small as a raspberry pi, or as large as a super-computing cluster

It is (by being open to inspection) more provably free of security problems, and bugs.

it eliminates the "gotta build operating software for our new device", and instead makes it more like "ok, we need 3 new device drivers" for our custom hardware.

its User Interface (UI) can be customized for any needed look and feel.

As to the different Distros issue. Would you use the same code for missile guidance (a real-time embedded use) as you do for calculating the weather for a 10 day forecast (a distributed, clustered, supercomputer use). The many distros each "scratch an itch"...
Whether that itch is a specialized security distro used to make computers safer and more secure, or is meant to provide a nearly indistinguishable desktop computer experience as a more commercial Operating System.

Point 2 - stop confusing Android devices with general purpose Linux desktop or server environments. They took a Linux kernel (stripped down and heavily customized) and built their own application stack and custom UI on top of it. I'm not sure that you should be counting these in the same way you count general purpose Linux PCs. Any number of electronic devices are built on a Linux kernel (for the exact reason that it is mature and royalty free) - do we count these too?

The "more eyes means better security" (#3 above) is and was always a myth

Don't confuse having a bug with evidence that open source is not more secure. The fact is that you cannot see Microsoft of Apple source code nor can you change it if you could. There are dozens of security flaws discovered in Windows every week. Of course, being open source does not guarantee that software is bug free. What it does do is allow for the possibility of community code review as well as the correction of any buggy code which is not possible in a closed source environment.

In point of fact, the article you links is evidence of the security of Linux since it brings the flaw in to the light and allows for correction.

Point 2 - stop confusing Android devices with general purpose Linux desktop or server environments. They took a Linux kernel (stripped down and heavily customized) and built their own application stack and custom UI on top of it.

Who is confusing things? Linux is designed to be stripped down, heavily customized and run any hardware with any application stack and any GUI you choose. That's kind of the whole point of Linux. Just because the Linux running on Android is not the desktop version you are used to does not make it any less Linux.

I'm not sure that you should be counting these in the same way you count general purpose Linux PCs. Any number of electronic devices are built on a Linux kernel (for the exact reason that it is mature and royalty free) - do we count these too

And why not? The OP never restricted this discussion to desktops. I'd argue that the millions of people use Linux every day in embedded devices and smartphones without knowing it, counts as ample evidence that it is already an everyday use operating system.

No one running a Windows phone is unaware that it is Windows and no one running an iPhone is unaware that it's Apple. Both of those 'portable' OS versions go out of their way to let you know how fantastic the OS is. Meanwhile Linux just works and doesn't care if you think Android is Linux or not.

William:
It sounds so easy in theory doesn't it. Just trawl through millions of lines of code, spot the bugs, recompile and share back with the community. Job done - take a well-deserved afternoon off. The reality is somewhat different. No one wants to hunt through other people's code for bugs. Even assuming there are people that do, take the time to understand it and all of its dependencies and that they know what to look for and how to properly test the fix, writing an ad-hoc fix is likely to break other things. How do you keep your fix in sync with other fixes and new developments in the original code? You report a bug and hope that someone gets to it, and then wait for your distro to move to the new code. Contrast this with closed-source software, where teams are dedicated to developing and testing their fixes as part of their day job, socializing them with other components, and getting them out. The only missing piece is source code access, but there are many researchers with very sophisticated tools for finding vulns with or without source code access.

>> In point of fact, the article you links is evidence of the security of Linux since it brings the flaw in to the light and allows for correction.

Do you really think that having "hundreds" of vulns in X11 hidden in plain sight for 22 YEARS until someone bothers to look is evidence that your process is working? Really? :-)

>> The OP never restricted this discussion to desktops.

True, but I think that is what is implied, and seems to be what most people on this forum have understood.

>> I'd argue that the millions of people use Linux every day in embedded devices and smartphones without knowing it, counts as ample evidence that it is already an everyday use operating system.

Of course you would - because you want to make the facts fit your point of view. I would argue that the millions of people are using phones - with phone UIs and application stacks that just happen to run on top of a Linux kernel. It's a big stretch and many wouldn't agree with you, but you are free to count them however you like ;-)

Sounds like those teams you mention are just as bad / or good as the open source community.

Of course you would - because you want to make the facts fit your point of view.

And here we have you going to the ad hominem tactic of dismissal. Argue the facts and stay away from the personal attacks if you don't mind.

I would argue that the millions of people are using phones - with phone UIs and application stacks that just happen to run on top of a Linux kernel.

See there? We agree. Millions of people run Linux systems every day and it's not too technical for their every day use. Just because it's on a phone does not mean it's not a Linux system. Those phones, just in case you missed it, are powerful computers that are performance beasts when compare to the Windows and Linux desktop systems of only a decade ago.

Your argument seem to be that since these computers are now very portable, have touch screen interfaces, and the ability to make telephone calls, they are no longer computers.

I can't find any merit in that line of thought. Computers will continue to shrink, change interface style, and missions focus to be sure... but they will still be computers and most of the new style of computer that we call cell phones are running Linux right now.